Everyone, especially the media, just need to stop reporting anything that these people do. They are obviously enjoying being in the spotlight every time they "threaten" to protest somewhere. Well, stop putting them in the spotlight. Eventually they will just fade away.

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee:It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.

So what if it was guns? Gun laws would not have prevented this from happening. Gun laws simply do not work, so people need to stop focusing on the guns and focus on the psychopath who decided to go on a shooting spree.

Please talk to your staff - don't greenlight anymore WBC threads. Let the 1st Amendment live long and prosper, but let's not give the AW of WBC the attention they crave. If you want to see their behavior change, ignore them - send the message that this is NOT acceptable.

Thanks,

Alassra

"I like the First Amendment, but I don't want THOSE people using it. They're nasty. Thanks!"

Regardless, she's correct. If you ignore them, they would go away.

This is made entirely implausible by the vast majority of media outlets being financially motivated by a juicy story, of course. But she's correct. If you'd never heard of these people, if the media wasn't constantly responding to them, they would eventually disperse.

Mock26:Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.

So what if it was guns? Gun laws would not have prevented this from happening. Gun laws simply do not work, so people need to stop focusing on the guns and focus on the psychopath who decided to go on a shooting spree.

Why not focus on BOTH? The psycho AND the ease with which he acquired military-grade weaponry.

Bit'O'Gristle:Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Bit'O'Gristle: You know, I was struck by the senselessness of this shooting, and even though i don't know the victims personally, or the survivors, i felt a deep sense of sadness and empathy not only for the slain, but the wounded and their families. Once denial is over for them, they try to make sense of this crime, it's what we do, we look for some reason, some logic that would put this kind of tragedy in its place in our minds. But sadly, there is no sense, nowhere you can shove this incident and file it away under "oh..ok..that makes sense now."

To use this tragedy for a political or religious slant is beyond trolling, it's inhuman. If you have noticed, even the politicians have not jumped on the "OMG...GET RID OF ALL GUNS" platform. Because they would be vilified by the public for using this for a personal agenda for their beliefs, and people don't forget that shiat. It's not the guns fault this person did this..it was his insanity. If it had not been a gun, it would have been a bomb, or something else.

This "church" is a small group of attention whores, who HOPE someone does something to them, that they would then be able to take to court and sue. They crave attention and cash, and that is all, and aren't above doing or saying anything to get it. Deny them this. Ignore them and they will fade away eventually.

That being said, my families hearts go out to the victims and their families, and we hope that time will heal them. I hope that quick and fair justice is done to the shooter.

You're right about not using this to further polarize our political environment, but this just sticks out as stupid. It was guns, and tear gas, and more combat weaponry, ok? Let's not sugar coat this shiat because some right-wingers might get their panties in a twist over the fear of gun control laws.

It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he l ...

See now you're just making shiat up. He didn't use a bomb, he didn't set fire to the theater and lock the doors, or run over people with a car. He shot the place up with guns, and this is a dispute about whether or not tougher gun laws would have been able to keep said guns out of this asshole's hands.

Btw, guns are not a tool. A shovel is a tool. A gun is a deadly weapon with one purpose in mind. When you confuse the two you put guns in the same category as a wheelbarrow and that's just absurd.

Mock26:Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.

So what if it was guns? Gun laws would not have prevented this from happening. Gun laws simply do not work, so people need to stop focusing on the guns and focus on the psychopath who decided to go on a shooting spree.

And I disagree that tougher gun laws don't work, or would not have prevented something like this from happening. So, that's that then?

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee:And I disagree that tougher gun laws don't work, or would not have prevented something like this from happening. So, that's that then?

You may disagree. You may believe in all kinds of things. It does not make them true and it doesn't make "that's that then".disagreeing with someone doesn't make them wrong or invalidate their argument.

You must be trolling.I find it hard to believe at this point that you aren't.How can anyone make such baseless arguments and not be trolling.

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: And I disagree that tougher gun laws don't work, or would not have prevented something like this from happening. So, that's that then?

You may disagree. You may believe in all kinds of things. It does not make them true and it doesn't make "that's that then".disagreeing with someone doesn't make them wrong or invalidate their argument.

You must be trolling.I find it hard to believe at this point that you aren't.How can anyone make such baseless arguments and not be trolling.

You may disagree. You may believe in all kinds of things. It does not make them true and it doesn't make "that's that then".disagreeing with someone doesn't make them wrong or invalidate their argument.

When applied to you in response, it works the same way. And no, I'm not trolling, but I'm assuming that this is the point where you parrot the talking point that had some brave citizen been packing themselves they could have heroically stood up and put two between this guy's eyes before he got off a shot, right?

You can take the easy route and just put your foot down and say all guns for all people, all the time, and then chant 2nd the second amendment to yourself in your bunker at night - OR - You can realize that some people think tougher gun laws are a good idea if they can keep guns out of the hands of people like this. I'm sure you'll cite some NRA talking points about how no gun laws work, and gun violence is lower than reported, ad nauseum, and that's fine. At this point I'm not arguing with you, I'm flat disagreeing with you. And no, I won't Google the supporting information for you either.

Please talk to your staff - don't greenlight anymore WBC threads. Let the 1st Amendment live long and prosper, but let's not give the AW of WBC the attention they crave. If you want to see their behavior change, ignore them - send the message that this is NOT acceptable.

Thanks,

Alassra

So much this.

Drew, read your own Twitter feed re: Sideshow Bob. You're clearly intelligent (as are most farkers), so at least come up with something equally intelligent to rob these fools of their notoriety as well.

Yes, enlighten me as to how guns are simply harmless tools. Bravo on your masterful dissertation of my comments. You must truly be in the highest echelons of academia for asking such brilliant questions as "Are you mentally retarded?"

These WBC morons haven't even read the bible they claim to live by. God doesn't hate anybody, even the sinners. You can disapprove of what someone is doing without hating them. Still, though, I hate these guys. They make the rest of us (Christians) look bad.

Yes, enlighten me as to how guns are simply harmless tools. Bravo on your masterful dissertation of my comments. You must truly be in the highest echelons of academia for asking such brilliant questions as "Are you mentally retarded?"

Please show me where I said it was harmless... Anything, even your example of a wheelbarrow, can be used to harm another person. Like I said, the answer is clearly yes.

If you have to lie, which you did by claiming that I said anything of the sort, it not only means your argument is weak it means you're a pathetic human being, shouldn't breed, and should leave the table when adults are discussing things. Do you not realize that we can scroll up, click the link to my reply, or probably even remember it well enough to KNOW that you're lying?

Don't worry though, you're appropriately farkied as a mentally retarded liar and will be treated as such. The handy script even noted the thread so when you attempt to deny it in future threads we'll have a way to verify it. And, no, don't worry - I'll remember and point it out to you again in the future. Why? Because liars on the internet are about the most pathetic people out there. If you can't be honest in an anonymous environment then you simply aren't an acceptable human.

So, support your argument with the man... Give it a shot. How is a firearm not a tool? Let's see if you can do it without telling additional lies.

Nytfall:These WBC morons haven't even read the bible they claim to live by. GodJesus doesn't hate anybody, even the sinners. You can disapprove of what someone is doing without hating them. Still, though, I hate these guys. They make the rest of us (Christians) look bad.

FTFY

Jesus is the one who loves, you. His dad is a moody vengeant prick who will smite you if you eat shellfish, wear clothes of two different fabrics, or mark your skin with tattoos and wants you to marry the women you rape.

The Irresponsible Captain:I'm not saying that the Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelps are trying to take our guns away. I'm just saying that they haven't denied it. And people must be trying to take our guns away, look at all the gun sales. They must answer these accusations.

/This'll never catch on.

They probably aren't even American citizens. They're probably Kenyan. And Muslim.

sure haven't:ecmoRandomNumbers: strangeluck: I don't know if I believe in heaven or hell, but for people like Westboro members, I really hope there is a hell. Cause they deserve to be roasting in it.

Forget about heaven and hell, I'd just like to see some karma. Is that too much to ask?

One doesn't exist without the other. You can't not believe in an afterlife and then believe in some form of cosmic justice. Either we live in a cold harsh reality, or we don't. It doesn't go both ways.

/WBC are the worst most vile scum on this earth

Those don't have to be mutually exclusive. A god being could dole out karma-esque consequences while a person is alive and still not HAVE to provide them an afterlife.

Yes, enlighten me as to how guns are simply harmless tools. Bravo on your masterful dissertation of my comments. You must truly be in the highest echelons of academia for asking such brilliant questions as "Are you mentally retarded?"

Please show me where I said it was harmless... Anything, even your example of a wheelbarrow, can be used to harm another person. Like I said, the answer is clearly yes.

If you have to lie, which you did by claiming that I said anything of the sort, it not only means your argument is weak it means you're a pathetic human being, shouldn't breed, and should leave the table when adults are discussing things. Do you not realize that we can scroll up, click the link to my reply, or probably even remember it well enough to KNOW that you're lying?

Don't worry though, you're appropriately farkied as a mentally retarded liar and will be treated as such. The handy script even noted the thread so when you attempt to deny it in future threads we'll have a way to verify it. And, no, don't worry - I'll remember and point it out to you again in the future. Why? Because liars on the internet are about the most pathetic people out there. If you can't be honest in an anonymous environment then you simply aren't an acceptable human.

So, support your argument with the man... Give it a shot. How is a firearm not a tool? Let's see if you can do it without telling additional lies.

You do realize you're stating that a gun and a wheelbarrow, because they can both be used to kill, are equally valued as tools, correct? I just need to make sure I'm grasping the depth of your outright insanity in this thread, which prior to you going nuclear was a heated discussion at best.

And I'm not falling for your Rovian attempt at painting me as a liar for your idiotic comments. You literally stated:

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Btw, guns are not a tool.

UnspokenVoice: Are you mentally retarded? Never mind, I read your last response. The answer is, "Yes."

I tell you guns aren't a tool, and you go off calling me mentally retarded. Clearly you think guns are in the same class of harmless tools as the wheelbarrow I used in my analogy. Of course, you think because a wheelbarrow can be used in some fantasy situation to kill someone that makes them not harmless, so now I'm the liar.

You're a buffoon who's trying to twist my words, and your extreme reaction to an otherwise civil discussion tells me and everyone else in this thread all we need to know as to who the "acceptable human" is.

Also, grow up man. Your dumb ass opened in response to my comment with a flat out insult and offered nothing of substance in return, and you're going to internet tough guy me with threats that you're cataloging my comments? Get f*cked, troll.

lohphat:Nytfall: These WBC morons haven't even read the bible they claim to live by. GodJesus doesn't hate anybody, even the sinners. You can disapprove of what someone is doing without hating them. Still, though, I hate these guys. They make the rest of us (Christians) look bad.

FTFY

Jesus is the one who loves, you. His dad is a moody vengeant prick who will smite you if you eat shellfish, wear clothes of two different fabrics, or mark your skin with tattoos and wants you to marry the women you rape.

Hey now, to be fair I'm pretty sure he doesn't want you to rape 'em to begin with but if you do...

Wow... Just picture that, for just a minute... So, you get drunk and eyeball some cute chick and you decide that tonight is the night you're going to tear a piece of that off - no matter what. Eventually, I'm not actually sure what goes on in their head at this time, they get to the raping business. You stumble home, drunk and spent, and wake up to the cops at the door.

Now, you've got to marry this woman that you raped last night. Let's hope you weren't already married but even if you weren't, there is no way in hell she's going to put out again, she's NEVER making you dinner or doing the dishes, and she sure as shiat isn't going to let you have your friends over to watch the game and have a few beers.

I can't say that I've ever really contemplated raping a biatch but, if that were the law, I think that would be the straw that broke the camel's back. That, right there, is a fine motivator to prevent rape. I don't think she's going to let you have a good night's sleep ever.

Oh, and what about the gays where it is illegal? If two guys want to get married one could just say the other one raped him and then what? Sometimes you gotta wonder if that God fella actually thought his cunning plan through. Though, I suspect, I'd be pretty pissed if I had created people and they chose to be like we are.

SkunkWerks:Regardless, she's correct. If you ignore them, they would go away.

No, they won't. These bastards are farking dedicated. I'm also pretty sure that the younger generation(s) actually believe the crap they spew (or at least part of it). I'm positive that Freddy (and probably the oldest children) are just in it for the money, but the younger kids have been raised on in the compound and know nothing else. That means they are operating from belief, not money, and you can't just ignore belief away.

Yes, enlighten me as to how guns are simply harmless tools. Bravo on your masterful dissertation of my comments. You must truly be in the highest echelons of academia for asking such brilliant questions as "Are you mentally retarded?"

Please show me where I said it was harmless... Anything, even your example of a wheelbarrow, can be used to harm another person. Like I said, the answer is clearly yes.

If you have to lie, which you did by claiming that I said anything of the sort, it not only means your argument is weak it means you're a pathetic human being, shouldn't breed, and should leave the table when adults are discussing things. Do you not realize that we can scroll up, click the link to my reply, or probably even remember it well enough to KNOW that you're lying?

Don't worry though, you're appropriately farkied as a mentally retarded liar and will be treated as such. The handy script even noted the thread so when you attempt to deny it in future threads we'll have a way to verify it. And, no, don't worry - I'll remember and point it out to you again in the future. Why? Because liars on the internet are about the most pathetic people out there. If you can't be honest in an anonymous environment then you simply aren't an acceptable human.

So, support your argument with the man... Give it a shot. How is a firearm not a tool? Let's see if you can do it without telling additional lies.

You do realize you're stating that a gun and a wheelbarrow, because they can both be used to kill, are equally valued as tools, correct? I just need to make sure I'm grasping the depth of your outright insanity in this thread, which prior to you going nuclear was a heated discussion at best.

And I'm not falling for your Rovian attempt at painting me as a liar for your idiotic comments. You literally stated:

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Btw, guns are not a t ...

You really are retarded... You are the one attempting to twist my words actually, not the other way around. You're a liar - still. I asked for ONE honest post and you couldn't even manage that. That ONE post was too far for you to go without telling additional lies.

Tools are DANGEROUS and should only be used by people who know how to use them. That is why your mom makes you wear a helmet when she lets you feed yourself with a fork. Yes, tools, all tools and pretty much anything is potentially dangerous if used incorrectly. A firearm is a tool. At no point did I give any indication that it was harmless. If you think tools are harmless you're an even bigger idiot than I had expected (which is pretty amazing as I was already pretty sure you were about as dumb as a rock).

You're wrong. You can't, you won't, admit it. It sucks but admitting your wrong is a lot easier than telling lies when we can all read what was written. It's cute that you attempt to claim I'm twisting your words. Dude, we HAVE a record of what was said by each of us. You even QUOTED me. It pains me to inform you but, yeah, you're not very bright and you're a liar. Duly noted and I'll make it a point to link to the thread when I point it out in the future and people can see and judge for themselves.

Now would be a good time to email a mod and ask them if they'll change your ID or just generate a new account. You're wrong. You're a liar. You're an idiot. All three of those are absolutely, undeniably, provably, correct statements. If you'd care to keep adding evidence I'm more than willing to keep pointing out your failures.

strangeluck:ecmoRandomNumbers: strangeluck: I don't know if I believe in heaven or hell, but for people like Westboro members, I really hope there is a hell. Cause they deserve to be roasting in it.

Forget about heaven and hell, I'd just like to see some karma. Is that too much to ask?

Not at all. Karma like, such as seeing a major trolling of them, involving them genuinely believing that everyone they ever harassed or tormented was coming to beat the shiat out of them with rusty hammers and shovels, and then using those shovels to bury them in unmarked graves.

/maybe a little harsh, but these people truly disgust me.

Actually, they may already think that in a way. They troll to incite fear, but are too cowardly to actually show up anymore.

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee:Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.

So what if it was guns? Gun laws would not have prevented this from happening. Gun laws simply do not work, so people need to stop focusing on the guns and focus on the psychopath who decided to go on a shooting spree.

And I disagree that tougher gun laws don't work, or would not have prevented something like this from happening. So, that's that then?

Washington DC had a total ban on all guns for something like 30 years, and they had one of the highest crime rates in the city, and that includes the most murders by firearms for several years running. Care to explain how that particular gun law worked? I mean, if guns were not allowed how were people able to use them to commit murder and to robbery?

And what about Chicago? For decades Chicago had a near total ban on handguns (only police officers and some select people in security jobs were allowed to own a handgun), yet during that time nearly all murders (around 85% if I remember correctly) were committed with a handgun. Again, care to explain how that gun law worked?

As for not stopping this, there was absolutely nothing in this guy's background that would have raised a red flag on a background check. Nothing. No matter how strict the requirements for getting a firearm he still would have met and passed all requirements and been able to purchase a firearm.

Mock26:Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.

So what if it was guns? Gun laws would not have prevented this from happening. Gun laws simply do not work, so people need to stop focusing on the guns and focus on the psychopath who decided to go on a shooting spree.

And I disagree that tougher gun laws don't work, or would not have prevented something like this from happening. So, that's that then?

Washington DC had a total ban on all guns for something like 30 years, and they had one of the highest crime rates in the city, and that includes the most murders by firearms for several years running. Care to explain how that particular gun law worked? I mean, if guns were not allowed how were people able to use them to commit murder and to robbery?

And what about Chicago? For decades Chicago had a near total ban on handguns (only police officers and some select people in security jobs were allowed to own a handgun), yet during that time nearly all murders (around 85% if I remember correctly) were committed with a handgun. Again, care to explain how that gun law worked?

As for not stopping this, there was absolutely nothing in this guy's background that would have raised a red flag on a background check. Nothing. No matter how strict the requirements for getting a firearm he still would have met and passed all requirements and been able to purchase a firearm.

Mock26:Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.

So what if it was guns? Gun laws would not have prevented this from happening. Gun laws simply do not work, so people need to stop focusing on the guns and focus on the psychopath who decided to go on a shooting spree.

And I disagree that tougher gun laws don't work, or would not have prevented something like this from happening. So, that's that then?

Washington DC had a total ban on all guns for something like 30 years, and they had one of the highest crime rates in the city, and that includes the most murders by firearms for several years running. Care to explain how that particular gun law worked? I mean, if guns were not allowed how were people able to use them to commit murder and to robbery?

And what about Chicago? For decades Chicago had a near total ban on handguns (only police officers and some select people in security jobs were allowed to own a handgun), yet during that time nearly all murders (around 85% if I remember correctly) were committed with a handgun. Again, care to explain how that gun law worked?

As for not stopping this, there was absolutely nothing in this guy's background that would have raised a red flag on a background check. Nothing. No matter how strict the requirements for getting a firearm he still would have met and passed all requirements and been able to purchase a firearm.

First off, I appreciate your tone. You're not being argumentative and that helps, so thank you. As for the DC gun ban, I've read conflicting information that states otherwise. For example, this article has this snippet:

"A 1991 study in The New England Journal of Medicine compared Washington to its suburbs before and after the gun law took effect. It found that the law was linked to a 25 percent drop in homicides involving firearms and a 23 percent drop in such suicides. The study found no drops in other kinds of homicides and suicides in Washington, and no changes in the suburbs."

After that different parties go on to dispute or back this claim, but I'm not going to back it since I think using D.C. as an example of gun control laws failing is inherently flawed. Keep in mind that D.C. had those laws enacted in the first place because they had record high crime rates. When you factor in poverty and a high concentration of African Americans who were particularly affected by the crack epidemic of the 1980's that ran rampant through that city, it's no surprise to me that their crime rates shot up despite the ban.

Similar statistics can be found elsewhere regarding Chicago. Now you state that there was nothing in his background that would have raised a red flag, and at first glance that appears to be true, so I won't dispute that. But... this guy did use tear gas canisters as part of his massacre, and had acquired quite the stock pile of ammunition and other weapons. Even if the ammunition stockpile (something to the tune of six thousand or more rounds) was acquired over time and otherwise wasn't a tip off, surely a civilian buying tear gas canisters would, right?

A typical pro-gun talking point is that guns are necessary for home and self-defense. Even taking that at face value, are tear gas canisters necessary for home or self-defense? If a robber breaks into your house are you going to pop a tear gas canister? If you're out in public and are about to be victimized in a crime, are you going to pop a tear gas canister? I don't see any reason for a civilian to own tear gas at all, and this guy buying it should have raise some eyebrows.

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee:"A 1991 study in The New England Journal of Medicine compared Washington to its suburbs before and after the gun law took effect. It found that the law was linked to a 25 percent drop in homicides involving firearms and a 23 percent drop in such suicides. The study found no drops in other kinds of homicides and suicides in Washington, and no changes in the suburbs."

So did it cause a decline in homcides? no, just a decline in homicides using guns. All this study proves is that if someone wants you dead, it's going to happen regardless of the instruments available.

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee:Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.

So what if it was guns? Gun laws would not have prevented this from happening. Gun laws simply do not work, so people need to stop focusing on the guns and focus on the psychopath who decided to go on a shooting spree.

And I disagree that tougher gun laws don't work, or would not have prevented something like this from happening. So, that's that then?

Washington DC had a total ban on all guns for something like 30 years, and they had one of the highest crime rates in the city, and that includes the most murders by firearms for several years running. Care to explain how that particular gun law worked? I mean, if guns were not allowed how were people able to use them to commit murder and to robbery?

And what about Chicago? For decades Chicago had a near total ban on handguns (only police officers and some select people in security jobs were allowed to own a handgun), yet during that time nearly all murders (around 85% if I remember correctly) were committed with a handgun. Again, care to explain how that gun law worked?

As for not stopping this, there was absolutely nothing in this guy's background that would have raised a red flag on a background check. Nothing. No matter how strict the requirements for getting a firearm he still would have met and passed all requirements and been able to purchase a firearm.

First off, I appreciate your tone. You're not being argumentative and that helps, so thank you. As for the DC gun ban, I've read conflicting information that states otherwise. For example, this article has this snippet:

"A 1991 study in The New England Journal of Medicine compared Washington to its suburbs before and after the gun law took effect. It found that the law was linked to a 25 percent drop in homicides involving firearms and a 23 percent drop in such suicides. The study found no drops in other kinds of homicides and suicides in Washington, and no changes in the suburbs."

After that different parties go on to dispute or back this claim, but I'm not going to back it since I think using D.C. as an example of gun control laws failing is inherently flawed. Keep in mind that D.C. had those laws enacted in the first place because they had record high crime rates. When you factor in poverty and a high concentration of African Americans who were particularly affected by the crack epidemic of the 1980's that ran rampant through that city, it's no surprise to me that their crime rates shot up despite the ban.

Similar statistics can be found elsewhere regarding Chicago. Now you state that there was nothing in his background that would have raised a red flag, and at first glance that appears to be true, so I won't dispute that. But... this guy did use tear gas canisters as part of his massacre, and had acquired quite the stock pile of ammunition and other weapons. Even if the ammunition stockpile (something to the tune of six thousand or more rounds) was acquired over time and otherwise wasn't a tip off, surely a civilian buying tear gas canisters would, right?

A typical pro-gun talking point is that guns are necessary for home and self-defense. Even taking that at face value, are tear gas canisters necessary for home or self-defense? If a robber breaks into your house are you going to pop a tear gas canister? If you're out in public and are about to be victimized in a crime, are you going to pop a tear gas canister? I don't see any reason for a civilian to own tear gas at all, and this guy buying it should have raise some eyebrows.

Look at the overall crime statistics for DC. In particular, scroll to the bottom and see the index rates. The ban was enacted in 1975 and the first year of the ban was 1976. Granted, it does not break down the types of crimes to show just those committed with a gun, but crime actually go worse for a while when all guns were banned. But, even without the statistics it is pretty telling that there was any gun crime while there was a total gun ban in place. That alone is proof that gun bans cannot stop gun crime. Same with Chicago. They completely banned all hand guns (for the most part), and yet hand guns were still used hundreds of times each year to commit murders (not to mention used in robberies). Again, that alone should be proof that gun bans do not work. Those who are intent on committing a crime will get guns.

As for tear gas, was it really tear gas? And of what type? Was it in canister form as fired from a teargas gun? Or were they small like a pepper spray canister? I have not really been following the story so I simply do not know anything about the teargas. If they were in fact canisters of the type that police would use then I do have a problem with that. I do not think that civilians should have access to something like that.

Also, depending on who you talk to, guns are used to stop anywhere from 80,000 to 2,500,000 crimes every year in this country. The low number actually comes the Federal Government (the Department of Justice, if I remember correctly) and the high number comes from a study by Gary Kleck, Ph.D. a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. Yes, there is a lot of leeway between those two numbers, but even the lower estimate is pretty big. That is nearly or over four times higher than the number of people who are killed by guns (excluding suicides and accidents and police shootings). Pretty huge.

And, finally, there are about 80 million gun owners (in about 65% of all homes) who own about 250 million guns. Look at how many of those are never used in a crime. In 2007 there were less than 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people in America, but let us round that up to an even 500 for the sake of easy math. According to the 2010 census there are 308,745,538 people in the country. That is just over 1,500,000 violent crimes. Even assuming that all of those are committed with a gun that still means that 99.9999996% of all legally owned guns are never used to commit a crime (assuming, of course, that all crimes were committed by legally owned guns, which they obviously are not). So even taking statistics and skewing them in the worst light the numbers show that the vast, VAST majority of legally owned guns are "used" in a lawful manner.

Oh, as for being polite, well, I supposed I could toss in some insults such as "Communist libtard" or "America hater" if it would make you feel better. :-D